I'm game. 1.Claim: Handing Out Money Causes Inflation. 1.Response: Inflation occurs when newly created money is not used productively. The bank-centric approa

I'm game. 1.Claim: Handing Out Money Causes Inflation. 1.Response: Inflation occurs when newly created money is not used productively. The bank-centric approach of money creation is through loans that distribute more dollars than that bank holds in deposits, thus requiring the creation of new money. The argument is that those who present a business plan and pass the sniff test, are likely to use that money productively, such that the inflationary effect of increased demand is offset by the increase in productivity. Money creation through fiscal spending of the Federal government in excess of taxation is inflationary, but when used productively for public works, the inflationary effect is offset by growth in the ability to be productive by the whole economy. This in a nutshell is the fiscal conservative vs fiscal liberal perspectives: A disagreement on the what is the most productive way to use new money: private sector loans or public works fiscal spending. Now back to UBI: The question is whether helicopter drops / basic income is a productive way to use new money or would it be better used elsewhere in the productivity vs inflation battle. The answer to this is debated, with opinions all over the place. Some people think the money will be spent wastefully, only increasing aggregate demand. Others respond that a basic income can keep people from falling off financial cliffs, and thus more likely to remain working (being productive), remain housed and providing a stable home for their children (i.e. ensure future generations more likely to be productive). Personally, I buy this latter argument. When people lose their jobs and home, start living on the street, they are more likely to turn to drugs and alcohol to cope (empirical fact). The important things is to set it at the right amount so that its neither too meager or too excessive to fulfill that role. 2.Claim: Checks may go to people who don't qualify, or are dead. 2.Response I abhor means testing. The number of times I've seen the cost benefit analysis of getting a job while losing foodstamp benefits goes like this for the poor: Spend all your time working, lose your foodstamp benefits, have to pay for childcare, starting at minimum wage, net: only a few more dollars, and a lot less freedom. Means testing also adds tons of paperwork, making programs expensive, and burdensome. Helicopter drops are burdensome. As far as dead people. C'mon. Surely we can keep track of who is living and who is dead in this modern age. 3.Claim People are free to spend the money in ways that weren't intended. 3.Response Poor people often know how to spend their money most effectively. It might not look the same as how someone with more money would spend it. The poor person might not fill up their gas tank, nor buy in bulk, which ends up being more expensive but it also keeps their resources fungible. Having a full tank of larder won't get you to work today if your tires are blown. Having a full tank of gas, won't feed the kids if you run low on money. Also, why should we be obsessed with how they spend it? What is this obsession for control that so many have? Sure some people will spend it in ways we don't agree with, but do we want to live in a world where everyone is micromanaged in their daily living? Moreover, we shouldn't assume that we can enumerate all the ways it can be best spent, when we know that life is filled with opportunities of many kinds, and productive use of that money requires flexibility in its use. 4.Claim: The amount of money sent is unlikely to provide sustainability (food, rent, clothes, utilities). 4.Response. First, the amount of money shouldn't be at the level that it disincentivizes productive use of time (i.e. work), but a floor so that even in really bad times, something is coming in AND with creative usage, can lever people out of poverty. Housing, however, is the big one. There is no solution to this but to build enough housing so that it becomes affordable...else UBI would just go to apartment owners. This IS a serious issue, and it needs to be solved, not just for UBI to work, but our current economy to work.